Share this:

TROUBLED US mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae said it lost almost $US60 billion ($92 billion) last year and asked the Treasury Department for a further $US15.2 billion in aid.

The US Government-controlled Fannie Mae reported a loss of $25.2 billion in the fourth quarter driven mainly by the effects of a prolonged housing slump and a global financial crisis. It had a third quarter loss of $29.0 billion.

For the full year of 2008, the company posted a loss of 58.7 billion dollars, almost 27 times higher than the 2007 loss of 2.1 billion dollars.Fannie Mae said it submitted a request Wednesday for 15.2 billion dollars from the Treasury “in order to eliminate our net worth deficit as of December 31, 2008.”

Share this:

The picture above blatantly mocks The Last Supper of Jesus Christ. Don’t let the media fool you for a second that the “gays” are friendly and are just like you and me except like people of the same sex. Faggots are the most degenerate filth the earth has ever seen. If you don’t agree have a look at their real side.

I tend to be of the mind that if you present people with the Truth that they will form an opinion and do the right thing based on their findings. The reason in my opinion that the majority of people are so misguided is that the people they look to for guidance only show them selective information in order to keep them in check. That is what I intend to do with this site is show people the unadulterated Truth and let them form whatever opinion they may given that information.

Without further introduction I give you one of the most vile and evil things I have ever seen in my entire life. I don’t say that to build hype, or to exaggerate. I say it from the bottom of my heart. Portrayed in the following link is most definitely NSFW, however I think it is crucial to witness if you are going to make an informed decision on homosexual behavior. This is the non politically correct side of the gay issue.

Share this:

CNBC anchors were left dumbfounded and acted overtly cantankerous yesterday after Congressman Ron Paul’s opening statement at the House Financial Services Committee was broadcast live to an audience of millions.

CNBC went live to the House, clearly without knowing that the Texas Congressman had the initial Republican statement at the hearing of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

After the Congressman spent two and a half minutes lecturing Bernanke on sound money principles, warning that the financial crisis cannot be solved by merely creating credit out of thin air, CNBC cut back to the studio.

Anchors Erin Burnett and Mark Haines were so perturbed by what they had just heard that they immediately cut to a commercial break:

Haines: “This is not going as planned”

Burnett: “No it is not”

Haines: “We were told that there would be a very limited number of opening statements, and it seems to be getting out of control.”

Burnett: “Here’s what we forgot, everybody is taking this live, you know what that means? Why would they miss an opportunity for free air time?”

Haines: “We’re going to take a commercial break and get them out of the way, so that when something really substandard [he must mean substantial?] is happening, we don’t have to interrupt them.”

The Congressman’s speech was powerful and eye opening:

“This is the end of an era,” said Paul, “we can’t reinflate the bubble….if we think that we can reinflate this bubble by artificially creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, believe me we don’t have a prayer of solving these problems – we have a total misunderstanding of what credit is versus capital.”

Of course, in the eyes of the corporate media shills for the Fed, the Treasury, and Wall Street Paul’s words were “out of control”. How dare he speak such sense and actively question the logic of the almighty ones, our only hope, our saviors (who also happen to be the very same set of criminals that led us down the path to economic ruin in the first instance).

Then again, how could we expect anything else from the likes of CNBC’s Burnett and Haines, who have previously demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the financial crisis, even commenting that gold has “no inherent value”.

Share this:

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an “impostor” in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief.

“As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States,” wrote Scott Easterling in a “to-whom-it-may-concern” letter.

Obama “has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility,” Easterling wrote. “In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.”

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama’s eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don’t have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

“Until Mr. Obama releases a ‘vault copy’ of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor,” his statement said.

Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor.

“I chose to work … to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq,” he wrote.

“I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced,” he wrote.

Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama’s eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.

“My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action,” he said.

Easterling was “saluted” in a forum on Taitz’ website.

“Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions,” said one contributor.

Said another, “For your voluntary service to our country, we owe you a debt we can never pay.”

As WND reported yesterday, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said during a meeting with constituents in Cullman County he has never seen proof the new president was born in Hawaii.

“Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Shelby’s office later stated the senator is confident of Obama’s vetting process, although it did not elaborate.

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg’s latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

Share this:

These stories are literally coming weekly now of people who deny the holocaust happened the way the jews claim, then promptly getting thrown in prison. I find it ironic that Nazi Germany is portrayed as a state which oppressed free speech and suppressed dissent more than any other the world has ever seen, yet modern day people who would admit to hating the “atrocities” of Nazi Germany do the exact same thing they claim to hate, throwing people in prison for a differing opinion. The truth will always be vindicated, it doesn’t matter what the laws of a country are, the truth is eternal.

Share this:

While many believe that prejudice has diminished over time, it’s not really true. Prejudice is much like the wind: Its direction changes, and the sheltered and well-situated may not sense it, but it’s always blowing on some people somewhere. Put literally, every age has its fashionable biases – and unfashionable people.

This was obvious during the presidential inauguration benediction, given by the Reverend Joseph Lowery. While making a supplication to the Lord, he made the following anachronistic plea:

“. . . help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right [emphasis mine].”

Well, I wonder if the reverend has ever asked the Lord why He scourged the world with white people in the first place.

It isn’t surprising that caucaphobia is in fashion. You can demonize any person, group or place; all you need do is focus on the object’s failings to the exclusion of its/his accomplishments. It isn’t even hard to do. To bastardize one of Abraham Lincoln’s lines, if you look for the worst in a group, you’re sure to find it. It’s just as with a person. If I repeatedly disseminated your sins and mistakes among the town folk while downplaying your good points, how long would it be before they were chasing you with pitchforks?

So it has been with whites for a long time now. It is not correct to say that history textbooks, documentaries and entertainment inundate us with stories about slavery and civil rights abuses; no, they inundate us with stories about whites’ practice of slavery and abuse of civil rights. There are movies such as “Roots” and “Mississippi Burning” but none of note about the Aztecs’ or Shaka Zulu’s domination of neighboring peoples, or the current African slave trade or Zimbabwean “president” Robert Mugabe’s persecution of whites and political opponents. Then, relating the American history guidelines of a prominent textbook publisher, the author of The Language Police, Diane Ravitch, writes:

“European Americans, the guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in all human history.”

This philosophy imbues school textbooks. While featured prominently are the sins of whites, others’ sins are whitewashed. For instance, due to special-interest-group pressure – such as that applied by Moslem activists – examples of slavery perpetrated by non-whites are in short supply or are sanitized. This, despite the fact that Moslem North Africans did at one time capture young boys of both the white and black races, castrate them and sell them into slavery. And this bias is a continuation of decades of anti-white propaganda of the kind embodied in Susan Sontag’s famous 1967 line, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” It’s an idea that has taken hold.

Thus must I mount a defense of the white race. But I want to preface it with a few remarks. First, don’t ask why I undertake such an endeavor. When the president has a preacher talking about the black, brown, yellow, red and white, it’s silly to ask why I speak of race. I’m not initiating such a discussion, I’m responding. I’m not throwing punches, I’m blocking.

Second, because of this – since I’m refuting those who assign blame by highlighting the sins of whites – it’s necessary that I trumpet whites’ accomplishments. Unlike those I’m refuting, however – who often ascribe the evils they feature to something inherent in whites – I don’t claim there is an innate quality in the race that should be credited with all these triumphs. On the contrary, I believe the force primarily responsible for Western civilization’s glories is Christianity, but that is grist for a different day.

It’s not hard to figure out where a defense of whites must start: Slavery. It’s the most odd of issues, in that we all thoroughly agree on the wrongness of it yet it is thoroughly divisive. It is the defining grievance of black America, something that imbues millions of black psyches. As an example, I attended a gathering a few years ago at which there was a certain guest, a rather emotive and outgoing black fellow who was very good at relating every topic of discussion, from the meaningful to the mundane, to America’s slavery. It was as if he could channel Kunta Kinte in every conversation.

Yet the reality of slavery is that, along with prostitution, it is one of the world’s oldest institutions. It is mentioned in the Bible and Koran, and, to the best of my knowledge, every major civilization has practiced it. And, if we’re to believe history and Afrocentrists (and I suppose you cannot believe both), the ancient Egyptians were black and enslaved Jews.

Moreover, the Islamic slave trade took at least as many Africans into bondage as did the European variety, and African tribes themselves had slaves and sold them to both civilizations. Additionally, while the word “slave” conjures up the image of a black person in the typical American mind, the term itself is derived from the word “Slav.” This is because great numbers of Slavs were once sold into slavery by conquering peoples. In other words, no group ever cornered the market on slavery – it touched ever corner of the Earth.

Yet, in the history of involuntary servitude, something else should be noted. It is a startling fact:

While whites weren’t the first ones to practice slavery, they were the first ones to abolish it.

Let’s be clear about this. Slavery was accepted. It was the status quo. It was an institution whose origin was shrouded in the mists of time. It was unquestioned.

That is, until Europeans said “No more.”

It was not Asians who effected this bold and unprecedented social change. It was not South Americans. It was not Africans. It was not American Indians. It was not Aborigines. It was Europeans, that cancer of human history, and they were just as white then as they are today. They gave the world change you can really believe in.

People will try to explain away this historical fact, saying that this striking example of man’s humanity to man has nothing to do with race. I will simply reiterate that the why of the matter is a discussion for a different day. For now, I’m content to say that if whites can be demonized without explanation for being one of many groups to enslave Africans, they can be credited without explanation for being the first group to outlaw the enslavement of anyone.

One of the reasons we fixate on slavery that ended more than 150 years ago concerns the effects many believe it has today. This is called the “legacy of slavery,” which, actually, seems not nearly as big a problem as the legacy of obsessing on legacies. Be that as it may, what is the real legacy of slavery?

Well, let’s think about it: Many lament blacks’ economic state in America, claiming it’s part of slavery’s legacy. But where would blacks be were it not for slavery? The answer is Africa, where people’s economic state is far, far worse than that of American blacks.

In other words, there is no reason to agonize over an event – even an evil one – responsible for your presence in a country that has offered its citizens unprecedented rights and standard of living. (Of course, to be precise, most blacks currently in the U.S. would not actually have been worse off absent slavery. This is because they wouldn’t have “been” at all, as ancestors whose procreation led to their existence would never even have met. The big picture is a funny thing, isn’t it?)

The point is that most people who arrived on American shores were driven here by some kind of persecution. Whatever the reason, however, thank God we’re in the land of opportunity and not languishing in a slum in Asia, South America, Africa or Eastern Europe. So, it’s ironic, but that some blacks were brought here in chains yesterday ensured that their descendants wouldn’t have to wear chains today.

Now we come to prejudice, another supposedly characteristic white fault. Yet the truth is quite the opposite. In reality, racial prejudice is probably found least among whites, due to political correctness.

Most white children are raised today with the idea that it’s profoundly immoral to be prejudiced (I discussed this here). This isn’t to say there aren’t some Archie Bunker types extant, but they certainly aren’t in fashion. Remember, it was mainly white people who originated, promoted and funded sensitivity-training classes, tolerance programs and multiculturalism (come to think of it, I may start hating white people myself). Now, while I consider these abominations to be worse than what they ostensibly remedy, this brings us to a relevant question: Can you think of another group that has gone to the point of self-flagellation to purge prejudice from its ranks? Heck, with how we beat each other up over this, no one really has to worry at all about whites. We’re all black and blue.

Then we have the matter of white achievement. The vast majority of what makes the lives of all races better today – modern science and medicine; our luxuries; Western art, literature, legal institutions; etc. – is the handiwork of whites. Oh, this is simply a matter of circumstance, of opportunity, of a twist of fate, you say? Perhaps. Again, this is not the time to discuss the ways and whys. Suffice it to say for now that if President Obama (PBUH) can frame matters in terms of race at his inauguration (and in his books and everywhere else, it seems), I can in an article. And if whites can be ridiculed for their transgressions, they can be recognized for their triumphs.

Yet, despite all this and more, caucaphobia is still not only accepted but often encouraged. And the hypocrisy is stark. The left admonishes against making even valid generalizations or entertaining intellectual discussions about group differences. And indulging stereotyping – that specter of egalitarian nightmares – can fast earn one pariah status in addition to a place on the unemployment line. Why, even the positive variety is off limits. We cannot say blacks are better athletes, even though the sports arena may bear witness to this; we cannot say Asians are more intelligent, even though they have the highest average I.Q. of any major racial group; we cannot say Latinos are good dancers (not sure about that one). The idea is that such beliefs can lead to stigmatization or resentment or, or . . . whatever the theory du jour may be.

But when the matter is whites, even baseless negative stereotypes aren’t thought cause for alarm. A Reverend Lowery can imply that whites are uniquely flawed and immoral, they can be portrayed as the bane of man, as “the cancer of human history,” and it’s ho-hum.

Yet, are we to believe that such demonization magically becomes harmless when whites are the targets? What does history teach about the plight of consistently scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It’s that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized – as Sunnis’ domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans’ enslavement of the Helots proved – it’s foolish to dismiss the peril posed by mainstreaming caucaphobia. (In fact, whites already suffer the sting of persecution; I documented some cases here and here).

Yet, that increasingly-maligned dead white male Ben Franklin knew whereof he spoke when he said, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Prejudice is a function of emotion, not logic, and emotion is like darkness, in that it can be blinding. A person who sees only color – and through colored glasses – will have a powerful immunity to facts. Thus, I only expect caucaphobia to intensify.

So what can we do? Well, prayer is always good, so I’ll conclude with one of my own right now. Lord, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will cease the attack, brown will no longer frown, white will be all right – and rhymes will fit the times.

Share this:

Finally a true Patriot! The ONLY way to take back our Nation is to make the government fear the people not the other way around.

“On October 22, just after the first round of bankster bailouts was passed by Congress against the will of the American people several representatives in Minnesota found their cars and homes spray painted by angry constituents. You can read about the story HERE.

It has just been reported by ABC Eyewitness News 5 in Missouri that Congressman Russ Carnahan’s home and car where spray painted in a similar manner.”